Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee company filed its return of income declaring a total income of Rs. 11,20,57,920/- for AY 2020-21, opting for a beneficial tax rate under Section 115BAA. However, due to technical glitches, Form 10IC could not be uploaded electronically. The AO processed the return at the regular tax rate of 30%, raising a demand. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's order.
Held
The Tribunal held that the denial of the concessional tax rate solely for the non-filing of Form 10IC due to technical glitches is not acceptable. The procedural requirement should not override the substantive benefit, especially when the intent to opt for the lower tax rate was clearly declared in the tax audit report and the tax was paid accordingly.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing Form 10IC due to technical glitches can be condoned to allow the benefit of Section 115BAA, despite it being a procedural requirement?
Sections Cited
115BAA, 154, 119(2)(b), 139(1), 143(1), 80-IB, 10AA, 10B, 72, 80J(6A)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI & SHRI S. R. RAGHUNATHA
O R D E R
PER S. R. RAGHUNATHA, AM:
This appeal by the assessee is filed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeal, Addl/ JCIT (A)-4, Hyderabad, for the assessment year 2020-21, vide order dated 07.11.2024.
The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a company filed its return of income for the A.Y.2020-21 on 17.11.2020 declaring total income of Rs.11,20,57,920/-. The return of income was processed by the AO, CPC, Bangalore on 29.12.2021 and raised a demand of Rs.93,79,350/- by denying the beneficial tax rate as per section 115BAA of the Act and by applying the tax rate of 30%.
:-2-: ITA. No.:30/Chny/2025
Subsequently, an order u/s.154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) has been passed by the AO, CPC, Bangalore on 16.06.2023 without any rectification. The said demand has been raised due to non-consideration of benefit of taxation opted u/s.115BAA of the Act by the assessee.
The assessee stated that they have opted for the benefit of taxation u/s.115BAA of the Act in the return of income filed. However, due to technical glitches the Form 10IC could not be uploaded in the Income Tax portal. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, CPC the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld.CIT(A).
The assessee submitted that the return of income along with audit reports have been filed by the assessee before the prescribed due dates. The assessee also opted for computation of tax u/s.115BAA of the Act in the return of income filed. However, due to technical glitches the assessee could not file Form 10IC electronically. Further, the assessee submitted that the form 10IC in physical form has been filed before the AO on 15.05.2023.
On perusal of the provisions of the Act and the circular No.06/2022 issued by the CBDT dated 17.03.2022 for the subject matter of ‘Condonation of delay u/s.119(2)(b) of the income tax Act, 1961 in filing of Form 10-IC for A.Y. 2020-21, the ld.CIT(A) partially allowed the appeal of the assessee by reducing the tax rate to 25% as per the First schedule of the Finance Act, 2020 on domestic company
:-3-: ITA. No.:30/Chny/2025 (not having opted for 115BBA) for A.Y. 2020-21, if the turnover of the domestic company does not exceed Rs.400 crores.
Aggrieved by the order of the ld.CIT(A) the assessee is in appeal before us.
The ld.AR of the assessee submitted that the ld.CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal of the assessee without considering that the assessee had filed its Form 10-IC in physical form on 15.05.2023, when the filing could not be done electronically due to technical glitches. Further, the ld.AR in support of his arguments filed a paper book of 155 pages containing the screen shot of the portal to demonstrate that the technical glitches for failure to file Form 10-IC, copy of form 10-IC filed in physical form, Audit report, ITR 6 to show that the assessee had opted for concessional tax by choosing the option of section 115BAA of the Act, written submissions made before the ld.CIT(A). The ld.AR also filed the paper book for case laws relied on to buttress his arguments containing 66 pages. The ld.AR submitted that when the assessee company in substance had exercised option for lower rate of tax u/s.115BAA of the Act, the assessee could not be deprived of lower rate of tax and delay in filing of form 10-IC ought to have been condoned. In support of the claim of the assessee the ld.AR relied on the following judicial precedents. - Aprameya Engg. Ltd V. ITO – – ITAT, Ahemdabad - PCIT, Kolkata V. Fasterner Commodeal Pvt. Ltd. – IA No.GA/2/2024 (Kolkata HC) - VM Procon Pvt.Ltd, V. ADIT [2024] 168 taxmann.com 517 (Gujrat HC) - Axe BPO Services Pvt. Ltd. V.Director (ITA-1) & 2 Ors. WP No.3425 of 2024 (Madras HC) - MJ Engineering Consultants (P) Ltd. V.ITO, - WP(C) No.11561 of 2022 (Delhi HC)
:-4-: ITA. No.:30/Chny/2025 - Court on its motion V.CIT, - WP (C) No.2659 & 5443 of 2012 (Delhi HC) - CIT V. Sivananda Electronics [1994] 75 taxman 93 (Bombay HC) 9. In light of the above arguments the ld.AR prayed for allowing the concessional rate of tax @ 22% as per section 115BAA of the Act by setting aside the order of the ld.CIT(A).
Per contra the ld.DR relied on the order of the ld.CIT(A) and submitted that the ld.CCIT-1, Chennai has already rejected the application of the assessee for condoning the delay u/s.119(2)(b) of the Act, vide order dated 20/02/2025. Hence, ld.DR submitted that there is no reason to interfere in the order of the ld.CIT(A) and hence prayed for confirming the same.
We have heard both the parties, perused materials available on record and gone through orders of the authorities below along with judicial precedents relied on. Admittedly the assessee company had filed the return of income along with the audit report filed on 17.11.2020 for the A.Y.2020-21 declaring total income of Rs.11,20,57,920/-. The assessee has chosen the option of concessional rate of tax as per section 115BAA in the ITR – 6 filed on 17.11.2020, which is applicable to domestic company (Page No.19 of the Paper book). Admittedly the assessee could not file the required form 10-IC along with the return of income due to technical glitches in the income tax portal. The AO, CPC, Bangalore has processed the return of income and computed the tax on total income at regular rate of 30% and raised the demand on assessee accordingly. Further, we find that the ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the of the assessee by confirming the CPC order.
:-5-: ITA. No.:30/Chny/2025 12. We find that the assessee has filed the Form 10-IC before the AO on 15.05.2023. Further, the ld.CCIT-1, Chennai has rejected the condonation application filed u/s.119(2)(b) of the Act for delay in filing the form 10-IC vide order dated 20.02.2025. On perusal of the ITR 7 filed by the assessee, we find that the assessee has filed the return of income on or before the due date prescribed u/s.139(1) of the Act as per the condition laid down in section 115BAA(5) of the Act. Further we also find that the assessee has clearly opted for the concessional rate of tax in ITR 7. The assessee filed its tax audit report in Form 3CA & 3CD and the chartered accountant has given the details stating that the assessee has opted for concessional rate of tax u/s.115BAA (Page No.6 of the Paper book). Therefore, in the present facts of the case, we are of the view that the denial of concessional rate of merely for the reason for non-filing of form 10-IC due to technical glitches in the income tax portal is not acceptable, considering the beneficial interpretation, the procedural requirement should not override the substantive benefits.
Our above view is fortified by the decision of the Ahmedabad Tribunal in the case of Aprameya Engg. Ltd V. ITO – wherein the tribunal in the identical set of facts held that the delay in filing Form 10-IC, though procedural requirement, should not invalidate the assessee’s substantive right to the benefit of section 115BAA of the Act. The relevant portion of the decision is as follows: 6. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. Section 115BBA of the Act was introduced for the purpose of granting benefit of reduced corporate tax rate for the domestic companies. In order to avail the benefit, such companies are required to :-6-: ITA. No.:30/Chny/2025 exercise the option in prescribed manner on or before due date specified under section 139(1) for furnishing the return of income. As per the rule 21AE of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, such option can be exercised by filing Form 10-IC. Sub-section (5) of Section 115BAA of the Act, makes it mandatory to file this form on or before the due date of furnishing the return of income as specified u/s 139(1) of the Act. In present case, the assessee has filed this form belated i.e. on 1-12-2022 7. The Ld. CIT(A) in his order has relied on the judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Wipro Ltd (Supra) The case of Wipro Ltd. (supra) was rendered on a different set of facts, wherein in the original return of income the assessee had claimed benefit under section 10B of the Act and thereafter, a revised return of income was filed by the assessee foregoing the claim of benefit of section 10B of the Act. As an afterthought the assessee filed a declaration as required under section 10B(5) of the Act belatedly after the due date mentioned in section 10B(5) of the Act and claimed carry forward of losses under section 72 of the IT Act, withdrawing its claim for deduction under section 10B of the IT Act. In the present case, the intention to opt for the lower tax rate was unambiguously declared in the tax audit report (Form 3CD) which was filed on 30-9-2022 i.e. before due date specified under section 139(1) of the Act, indicating the assessee's bona fide belief and commitment to the concessional tax regime. Therefore, there is a marked distinction between the facts of the Wipro Ltd. case (supra) and the instant facts. Further, we observe that Ahmedabad ITAT in the case of Dy. CIT v. Croygas Equipments (P) Ltd. [IT Appeal No. 415 (Ahd.) of 2020, dated 16-6- 2023] had also held that the Principal of Wipro Ltd (supra) cannot be uniformly applied to all cases and the aforesaid decision was distinguished by the Ahmedabad Tribunal, with the following observations: "6.3 Another notable issue for consideration is that recently the Hon'ble Supreme Court was confronted with the claim of benefit u/s 10B in Pr. CIT v. Wipro Lid [2022] 140 taxmann.com 223/288 Taxman 491/446 ITR 1. The assessee furnished the original return taking the benefit of section 10B and did not carry forward the loss. Thereafter, a revised return was filed foregoing the claim of deduction u/s 10B. The AO rejected the withdrawal of exemption under section 10B by holding that assessee did not furnish the necessary declaration in writing before due date of filing return of income, which was an essential requirement for not claiming the benefit of section 10B. The Hon'ble High Court decided the issue in favour of the assessee by holding that the requirement of filing the declaration was mandatory but filing it along with the return of income u/s 139(1) was a directory requirement. The matter was brought by the Revenue before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The :-7-: ITA. No.:30/Chny/2025 assessee, inter alia, relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in G.M. Knitting Industries (P) Ltd (supra). Their Lordships held that the requirement of filing the report in support of deduction u's 108 was not a directory but a mandatory requirement. It further held that both the conditions of filing the declaration and filing it before the time limit u/s 139(1)-were mandatory and had to be cumulatively satisfied. Rejecting the reliance on G.M. Knitting Industries (P) Ltd. (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that that decision was relevant in the context of deduction provisions and not the exemption provisions as given under Chapter III of the Act. 6.3.1 In our view, the aforesaid decision would not apply to assessee's set of facts and would not preclude/prohibit the assessee from claiming deduction u/s. 10AA of the Act, for the following reasons: (i) Firstly, in the case of Wipro Limited supra, the issue for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was that in the original return of income, the assesse had claimed deduction under section 10B the Act, whereas in the revised return filed under section 139(5) of the Act, assessee did not claim deduction under section 10B of the Act, and instead claimed benefit of carry forward of louses. It was in light of these facts that the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that on a plain reading of section 10B(3) of the Act, it is clear that where assessee claimed benefit under section 10B(3) by furnishing declaration in revised return much after due date prescribed under section 139(1), same was to be denied as requirement of furnishing declaration before AO before due date of filing original return under section 139(1) war a mandatory condition not directory. However, notably, there is no such equivalent similar provision in section 10AA of the Act, which gives an option to the assessee to file a declaration before the due date of return of income under section 139(1) of the Act, to the effect that the provisions of this section may not be made applicable to him, for the impugned assessment year. Therefore, going by the strict language of section, the relevant statutory provisions on which the decision of Wipro was based, were on a different footing. Further, the issue for consideration in the Wipro case is also distinguishable, since in the assessee's case, it had claimed benefit of deduction u/s. 10AA in the original return of income (and only Form 56F was omitted to be e- filed alongwith return of income), whereas the issue for consideration in Wipro case supra was that once the assessee had claimed benefit of section 10B in the original return of income, whether such benefit could be foregone withdrawn by filing declaration u's 10B(8) of the :-8-: ITA. No.:30/Chny/2025 Act in the revised return of income filed u/s 139 (5) of the Act (and the assessee could, in turn, avail the benefit of carry forward losses in the revised return of income). (ii) Secondly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Wipro Limited held that section 10B of the Act is an "exemption provision" and hence, assessee claiming such exemption has to be "strictly comply with the exemption provisions. However, notably, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Yokogawa India Ltd 391 ITR 274 (Supreme Court), held that section 10A of the Act is a "deduction provision" and not an "exemption provision". Therefore, apparently there seems to be a difference of opinion to whether section 10A/B provisions qualify as "Exemption" or Deduction" provisions. Therefore, since it is well-settled principle of law that deduction provisions, which have been introduced in the Statute to provide incentive to the assessee, should be construed "liberally", in our considered view, once it is not disputed that the instant set of facts, the assessee claimed the benefit of provisions under section 10AA in the return of income (which in our view is a mandatory directory requirement), the benefit of section 10AA cannot be denied only on the ground that the assessee could not file Form 56F along with the return of income (being a procedural requirement), especially when Form 56F has been filed by the assessee at the assessment stage when such claim was being considered by the Assessing Officer. (iii) Besides the above, in the case of G. M. Knitting Industries (P) Ltd. case supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that even though necessary certificate in Form 10CCB along with return of income had not been filed but same was filed before final order of assessment was made, assessee was entitled to claim deduction under section 80-IB of the Act as well. Therefore, in light of the decision of Yokogawa supra (which is held that section 10A of the Act is a "deduction provision" not an "exemption provision") and the decision of G. M. Knitting Industries case supra, which have been rendered on a similar facts as that of the assessee is claim of deduction was made in the original return of income itself, in our view, the ratio laid down in the Wipro Ltd case would not disentitle assessee to claim benefit of section 10AA of the Act, since it has been rendered on a different set of facts. Therefore in our considered view, once such claim has been made in the original return of income and assessee has also furnished Form 56F during the course of assessment proceedings itself, before the assessment was finalized. The assessee should not be denied the benefit of s.
:-9-: ITA. No.:30/Chny/2025 10AA of the Act. It is a well settled principle of law that if there is any ambiguity regarding interpretation of a Statutory provision, an interpretation favourable to the assessee may be taken, especially when we are dealing with Statutory provisions aimed at giving some incentive to the assessee." 8.1 The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Zenith Processing Mills v. CIT [1996] 219 ITR 721 held that provision of section 80J(6A) of the Act to extent it requires furnishing of auditor's report in prescribed (P) form along with return, is directory in nature and not mandatory. Further, it was held that the assessee can be ion permitted to produce such a report at later stage when question of disallowance arises during course of assessment proceedings. In the instant case, the Ld.A.O. as well as the Ld.CIT(A) has denied benefit of concessional tax rate u/s 115BAA of the Act on account of an inadvertent error on the part of the assessee in not e-filing Form 10 IC before due date prescribed. We are, therefore, of the view that there is sufficient compliance if the Form 10 IC has been filed during the course of assessment proceeding, since there is no material objective to be achieved by the assessee in not e-filing the same, once the intent was very well declared in Form 3CD. 8.2 Considering the principle of beneficial interpretation, the procedural requirements should not override substantive benefits. The Courts have taken a lenient view on procedural lapses when substantive benefits at involved. SC ruling in the case of CIT v. G.M. Knitting Industries (P) Ltd. [2016] 71 taxmann.com 35/[2015] 376 ITR 456 (SC) emphasized that the making of a claim of deduction is mandatory, but timing is directory Even if the claim is made during the assessment proceedings, such a claim is to be allowed. 8.3 After considering the submissions, the judicial precedents cited and the specific facts of the case, we are of the opinion the delay in filing Form 10-IC, though a procedural requirement, should not invalidate the assessee's substantive right to the benefit of section 115BAA of the Act. 8.4 The CBDT's Circulars extending the due dates for filing such forms in earlier years indicate a recognition of such procedural difficulties. These Circulars indicate a degree of administrative flexibility and s recognition that procedural lapses should not necessarily lead to the denial of substantive benefits. Moreover, denying the benefit based solely on this lapse would be against the principles of equity and justice, especially when there is no dispute regarding the assessee's eligibility for the lower tax rate.
Further, the jurisdictional Hon’ble Madras High court in the case of Writ petition in the case of Axe BPO Services Pvt. Ltd. V.Director (ITA-1) & 2 Ors. WP No.3425 of 2024, in the identical set of facts of the assessee’s case, their lordship has held as under:
:-10-: ITA. No.:30/Chny/2025 14. This Court is of the view that there is a gross mis-direction by the respondent inasmuch as there is non-application of mind as to whether the failure to consider the claim of option to discharge tax under Section 115BAA of the Act would result in genuine hardship. Instead, the enquiry was directed towards whether there is any justification for the delay in filing the Form 10-IC. The need to invoke Section 119(2)(b) of the Act, itself would arise only if there is a delay and the enquiry ought to be whether that delay if let un-condoned would result in "genuine hardship" and therefore it is "desirable" and "expedient" to admit the claim in this case, option to discharge taxes under Section 115BAA of the Act.
In the present case, I also find on the facts that the petitioner had acted bonafide in claiming the option of discharging tax under Section 115BAA of the Act, inasmuch as while filing the return, the petitioner made it clear that option to pay tax under Section 115BAA is exercised. Importantly, tax has also been remitted/discharged at 22% in accordance with provisions of Section 115BAA. Secondly, there was a proceeding under Section 143(1) of the Act, wherein again there was no express indication that the taxes were sought to be levied at 30% rejecting the petitioner's request at 22%, only on the basis that Form 10-IC was not filed in support of its option to discharge tax under section 115BAA of the Act. Importantly, due to Covid pandemic, the timeline for filing the Form 10-1C was extended until 30.06.2022. Now the following events viz., (a) filing of returns indicating option to discharge taxes under Section 115BAA of the Act; (b) Payment of taxes at 22% by the petitioner and (c) Proceeding under Section 143(1) of the Act wherein it was proposed to tax @30%, without disclosing that the levy at higher rate @ 30% instead of 22% in terms of Section 115 BAA of the Act was only for want of filing of FORM 10-IC, are prior to 30.06.2022. Had the petitioner been put on notice of non-filing of Form 10-IC, as being the reason for not accepting the option under Section 115BAA of the Act, even during the course of proceedings under Section 143 of the Act the petitioner could have possibly complied with the requirements by filing the Form 10-IC, before the expiry of the extended period i.e., on 30.06.2022.
16. I also find that, there has been substantial compliance of the requirement under Section 115BAA of the Act, as evident from the fact that while filing the returns, it was declared/stated by the petitioner that the option to discharge the tax was exercised under Section 115BAA of the Act and taxes were in fact paid @ 22% without claiming deductions as contemplated under Section 115BAA of the Act. In this regard, it may be relevant to refer to the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Dilip Kumar (2018) 9 SCC, wherein while deciding the Doctrine of Substantial Compliance held as under:
:-11-: ITA. No.:30/Chny/2025 "33. A fiscal statute generally seeks to preserve the need to comply strictly with regulatory requirements that are important, especially when a party seeks the benefits of an exemption clause that are important. Substantial compliance with an enactment is insisted, where mandatory and directory requirements are lumped together, for in such a case, if mandatory requirements are complied with, it will be proper to say that the enactment has been substantially complied with notwithstanding the non-compliance of directory requirements. In cases where substantial compliance has been found, there has been actual compliance with the statute, albeit procedurally faulty. The doctrine of substantial compliance seeks to preserve the need to comply strictly with the conditions or requirements that are important to invoke a tax or duty exemption and to forgive non-compliance for either unimportant and tangential requirements or requirements that are so confusingly or incorrectly written that an earnest effort at compliance should be accepted."
In the circumstances this Court is of the view that the Respondent Authority/Board has completely mis-directed itself in not-examining if the failure to consider the claim of option to discharge tax under Section 115BAA on the ground of failure on the fact of the petitioner to file Form 10-IC within the period stipulated under Section 115BAA would cause "genuine hardship" to the petitioner/assessee and thus it is desirable as expedient to permit the petitioner to file Form 10-IC in support of its option under Section 115BAA and deal with the same on merit. The facts narrated supra leaves no room for doubt that the rejection of the petition under Section 119(2)(b) to permit the petitioner to file Form 10-IC in support of its exercise of option under Section 115BAA of the Act would cause genuine hardship and it is desirable and expedient to permit the petitioner to file Form 10-IC in support of its claim /option under Section 115BAA of the Act and deal with such claim on merits in accordance with law.
In view thereof, the impugned order is set-aside, the respondent shall keep the portal open to enable the petitioner to upload the Form 10-IC and the petitioner shall file the Form 10-IC within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, thereafter the respondent shall proceed to deal with the claim of the petitioner under Section 115BAA on merit and in accordance with law.
15. In the present conspectus of the case and respectfully following the judicial precedents discussed (supra), we are of the considered view that the ld.CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the grounds of appeal of the assessee in respect of claim
:-12-: ITA. No.:30/Chny/2025 of beneficial tax rate @ 22% u/s.115BAA of the Act and hence we set aside the order of the ld.CIT(A) and direct the AO to consider the form 10-IC filed in physical form and recompute the tax u/s.115BAA of the Act as claimed in the Return of income filed in Form ITR 6 along with the tax audit report.
In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 07th July, 2025 at Chennai.